Nothing very interesting. TAC market research phoned me today.

Just got a phone call from a fast-talking weirdo called George (!),
who claimed to be doing market research for TAC into motorcyclists
attitudes to road safety.

I thought I'd do it to find out what they want to know.

How old am I and what sort of bike do I ride?
What is my % commuting vs. recreational riding?
Do I go to motorcycle racing events? When? Do I watch motorcycle
racing on TV?
Am I a member of a club/organisation/group/gang?
Where do I go for information about motorcycling?
Am I considering buying any new kit soon? What?
Where do I go for information about safety equipment?
Do I speed? Do I drink and ride? Do I own any safety gear? Do I
wear all the gear all the time? Have I taken drugs lately?
How do I stick to the speed limit at 50, 60, or 100 kph?
What are the relative liklihood and severity of injuries for a
motorcyclist in a crash compared to cyclist, car driver, and
pedestrian?
Supposing I was going to speed, how likely do I think it is that I
would be caught by the police?
Supposing I was going to drink and ride, how likely do I think it is
that I would be caught by the police?
How often have I seen a booze bus in the last 3 months?
Supposing I was going to take drugs and ride, how likely do I think it
is that I would crash?
Do I believe hi-vis clothing makes me more visible to drivers? (seemed
surprised when I said not - I hope research will drive legisaltion
rather than public opinion; hope springs eternal).
Is it the responsibility of the driver or the motorcyclist to see/be
seen?
Do I think additional safety equipment should be made compulsory by
law?
Should Vic Roads pay out for injuries to motorcyclists who are not
wearing mandatory safety equipment?
Have I had a crash resulting in hospitalisation in the last 3 years?
Am I aware of the EU safety standard for motorcycle eqipment?
Should the govenment offer a rebate for purchasing new kit?

Conspiricy theorists, get cracking on that! What's going on?!

 

Definitely an Evil Plot[tm]- call the police at once...

 

There is a push by the TAC to pay less to injured riders who are not
kitted up in "safety gear" citing "contributory negligence" if there is
cause for a civil case.
Normally anyone injured is paid out on a no fault basis but if one is
injured more than a certain incapacity then it can go to court for more
damages.
A case in Victoria recently where an injured scooter rider was injured
and was subject to a large payout was stuffed around by the TAC wanting
to reduce her payout citing "contributory negligence" as she was not
wearing enough "safety gear" in the end they backed down but it's
obvious that they are going to pursue this line and are probably looking
at making "safety gear" a condition to getting a full payout, hence the
"survey"

 

MRA Media Release 8th September 2009

Contributory Negligence?

Disturbing reports have emerged that the Transport Accident Commission
(TAC) is penalising some seriously injured riders with serious injury
payouts automatically reduced by up to 50% for "contributory negligence"
– even though they have not committed any offences. The concept of "no
fault" appears to be inappropriate, with riders presumed by the TAC to
be negligent simply for riding a motorcycle or scooter.

MRA President John Karmouche today called on the TAC to tell the truth
about its treatment of seriously injured motorcycle and scooter riders.

Mr Karmouche stated, "we recently became aware of an allegation that the
TAC was attempting to reduce compensation to riders where they determine
the clothing being worn is not meeting TAC standards. We are aware of
incidents where the protective clothing was highly unlikely to reduce
injuries. The TAC representative on the Victorian Motorcycle Advisory
Council (VMAC) stated that she was not aware of this."

"Since that time, information has emerged to confirm that although the
individual concerned may not have been aware of this, the TAC is indeed
regarding a lack of “protective clothing†as contributory negligence
– despite the absence of any standard stating exactly what protective
clothing is. The incidents uncovered appear to be merely the tip of the
iceberg. Using the same principle we must now ask whether drivers of
older cars that lack modern safety features and bicycle riders wearing
Lycra and bicycle shoes will also be penalised?

Mr Karmouche went on to say it appears that riders are seeing a pattern
of secrecy and misinformation again emerging from the TAC.

“Riders have engaged in consultation with the TAC in good faith. It
appears that the TAC have chosen to withhold information and misdirect
questionsâ€, said Karmouche.

There is a reasonable provision for the TAC to deny loss of income
claims where a serious offence has been proven. However, reducing
compensation to injured riders when no offence has been alleged is
reprehensible.

 

Forgot one: would I consider buying safety equipment if my insurance
premium was reduced on the condition that I was wearing said kit? My
reply was "I wear all the gear for my own safety - not to save money,
so no."

 

I can see the Minister's media release in the coming months..."After
extensive community consultation we have decided to shaft riders ..."

 

any one participating in a motor cycle survey is nuts unless they are
extremely clever and can circumvent the hidden agenda.

 

Geez George, The Police are part of the damn plot.

Theo

 

does that mean if I crash a car with no airbags or the latest safety
features I will receive less of a payout due to "contributory
negligence"?.... I think not


also

"Am I aware of the EU safety standard for motorcycle equipment?"

are they aware that a Helmet with a EU sticker of it is illegal to use
over there in Aust?

**** the TAC shit me!

mh

 

Have a read of pps 130-131 in the Sep/Oct 09 issue of Aus Road Rider, viz.
TAC website stating that riders *must* wear EU approved safety gear.

 

Damn. I should have listed ABS as safety related equipment I will get
in the next year in that case.

er... you mean Austria, right?

You and me too, mate.

 

Simplistically... yes.
Methinks there's a bit more to it though.

 

no... Australia.. Austria is just up the road from me ATM


mh
(EU only stickered helmets are not legal in Australia, pitty, you can
buy full carbon fibre helmets for about 250 euro, light as buggery)

 

What makes them illegal in Aus?

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:16:54 +1100

Lack of an AS1698 sticker makes them a non-approved helmet so can't be
used where approved helmets are required in all Australian
jurisdictions that have accepted the Australian Road Rules. That may
or may not fit your definition of "illegal".

There have been some noises about allowing non AS1698 lids in if they
have EU stickers, but I think that's all there's been, noises.

Zebee

 

Hope I don't get pulled over for a helmet check
I havd been using the same helmet for the past 40 years
It did have a flying kite sticker on it years ago
but over the years it has disappeared into the wilderness

 

Fair enough, but among other things you are a third party insurance
payout loophole waiting to happen. It's a lottery, and you might never
win the prize, but if you do it could be pretty uncomfortable for you.

 

I think I read that there's a newer standard than AS1698 and it includes NZ.
OH; it's just AS-NZS 1698-2006. Different-looking sticker though.
http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/post-a168995-

 

Chain drive riders should be converted to shaft drive bikes as soon as
possible for their own good


G-S

 

Oops. Thanks for that. You're right. I just read something and added it to
the discussion without having read it myself first (because ARR is
*usually* accurate). So either Bear's correspondent was mistaken, or
they've amended the publication in light of correspondence they received.
Be interesting to know which, wouldn't it?

So now I *have* read it, what I liked even more than the one you quoted
was:
"In Australia it is illegal to ride without a helmet that doesn't comply
with the Australian Standard AS1698."

Honestly, it does say that. Page 3 - address below:
www.spokes.com.au/#/protective-clothing/buying-gear